Arcadia Discussion Zone

Fair enough - however, I am sure there were many, many others, perhaps even better disposed. Why Sauniere?

I think the qustion is why members of the clergy....including Sauniere.
Like those of today, they were not necessarily cleanskins, but could operate under a guise of innocence and purity.
Given a "reasonable" cause, and like minds, subversive and clandestine behaviour is made a lot more simple.
As pointed out by various posters, these were interesting and intriguing times to say the least....of the populace, the clergy were educated and therefore respected, and feared because of the power of religion. What better shield under which to operate?
The RLC story being the most researched means we have a lot of information through which to sift, and some of it is fascinating, I'd wager should we research as assiduiously other clergy in those times, we would be equally entertained

Sorry, I disagree.

Why was Sauniere in particular chosen by these people to manage/disburse funds or whatever?

Fair enough. So no other clergy were involved in subversive or unpriestlike behaviour? As posted previously by others (sorry, can't locate it for now)?

I don't know RS.

This wasn't it, but you get the drift. Maybe when Europe wakes, someone can elucidate.

If you look back to page one of this thread, you'll see a post from Sheila concerning several priests who were suspended by the French Conseil d'Etat for anti-Republican, pro-monarchist sermons given in the run-up to the October 1885 elections. There are perhaps fifteen names, among them Saunière's. The following year he received a generous cash gift from the Countess of Chambord, de jure Queen of France and widow of the last de jure king, for repairs to his church. While there may be no correlation, think about all the other churches in France that might have benefitted from the Countess' largesse - why was his chosen out of so many? And then the following year the Countess' nephew (her sister's son, married to her late husband's niece) became the Legitimist heir to France as well as Spain. His Carlist followers, having been routed a decade prior by Spanish government troops, fell back on the French side of the border and many were still living there in hiding, supported by Legitimist aristocrats and priests who gave them sanctuary.

I can't prove that Saunière was part of the network that funneled funds for the care and well-being of these refugees. Nor any other priest by name for that matter. All I know from what I have read is that there was a network hiding these men, and others who came later, that was still operational as late as 1909.

However, given the notoriety Saunière had for his fiery pro-monarchist, anti-republican sentiments (that caused a government-imposed suspension) and the favor showed him shortly thereafter by his "queen", I cannot imagine why he would not have come to the attention of Don Carlos who needed sympathetic, courageous (foolhardy?) supporters in that geographical area who were willing to take risks.

Nor, would I imagine, was Saunière the only one.

TCP

edited to add: Sheila's post I refer to here was reposted by rs, right above this post.

En 1883, Henri V, le comte de Chambord trouve finalement la mort et la majorité des monarchistes se rallie au comte de Paris. Mais à cette date, la République a eu largement le temps de se renforcer et le prétendant ne parvient pas à prendre le pouvoir. En 1886, le vote d’une nouvelle loi d'exil contraint le comte de Paris et sa famille à quitter le territoire national mais le prince continue à essayer d'intervenir dans les affaires de la France. À chaque crise que connaît le pays, et particulièrement lors de l'Affaire Boulanger et du Scandale de Panama, le chef des Orléans espère pouvoir monter sur le trône. Néanmoins, chaque espoir de restauration est suivi d'une nouvelle déception et le comte de Paris meurt en exil au Royaume-Uni sans avoir eu l'occasion de réaliser son rêve.


In 1873, anticipating a restoration of the monarchy by the largely monarchist National Assembly that had been elected following the fall of Napoleon III, Philippe d'Orléans (the Count of Paris) withdrew his claims to the French throne in favour of the legitimist claimant, Henri V, best known as the Comte de Chambord. It was assumed by most that the Count of Paris was Chambord's heir, and would thus be able to succeed to the throne upon the childless Chambord's death, reuniting the two claims that had divided French monarchists since 1830. However, Chambord's refusal to recognize the tricolor as the French flag sabotaged hopes of a restoration, and Chambord died in 1883 without ever specifically recognizing his Orléanist rival as his heir.

Upon the Count of Chambord's death, the Count of Paris was recognized by most monarchists as Philippe VII of France. This succession was disputed by the Carlist descendants of the Bourbon kings of Spain, who argued that being descended directly from Louis XIV their claim was greater than that of the Orléanists'; however, this argument pointedly ignored Philip V of Spain's renunciation of his and his descendants' claim to the French throne pursuant to the Treaty of Utrecht.

It's a very complicated moment in history and i certainly don't understand it all, but i did find this very interesting sonnet by Louis de Veyrières entitled In hoc signo Vinces on page 8 of this piece i link to below about Le Droit monarchique: un journal légitimiste et traditionaliste which was bankrolled by the countess of Chambon between 1883-1884.

specifically notice the emblems on the bottom two lines of the verse

Louis de Veyrières entitled In hoc signo Vinces from 1883

Quel est donc le destin de la terre salique ?
Dieu se voile, et le mal semble seul apparent !
Quatre partis sont prêts ! La fausse République
Aux immondes ruisseaux se transforme en torrent !
Le rouge est pour jamais son signe symbolique !
Ses victimes sont là, le prêtre au premier rang
Chaque innocent lui donne une ardeur famélique
Et, nouveau feu grégeois, elle vit dans le sang !
Un aigle sans vigueur veut affronter la nue ;
Du firmament pour lui la vole est inconnue ;
Et du Coq d'Orléans, le désastre est certain !
En vain ces ennemis causent notre souffrance
Déjà le Sacré Cœur et le Lis, fleur de France,
Ornent le Labarum d'un autre Constantin ! "

http://cemmc.u-bordeaux3.fr/pdf/dr4.pdf

For those that understand French this article is a bit of an eye-opener to say the least.

the same article in English....see link

What is therefore the destiny of the Salic soil?
God veils himself, and Evil alone is visible!
Four parties are ready! The false Republic,
With its squalid gutters, transforms itself into a torrent!
Red is forever its symbolic colour!
Its victims are there, the priest in the forefront.
Each innocent gives it a starveling heat
And, as new Greek fire, it lives in the blood!
An eagle without strength wants to confront the naked one;
To him flying in the firmament is unknown;
And for the Cockerel of Orleans disaster is certain!
In vain these enemies cause our suffering,
Already the Sacred Heart and the Lily, the flower of France,
Decorate the standard of another Constantine!"

The style of the sonnet is perhaps somewhat gauche and awkward, but we can see emerging within it the major symbolic system of the four political movements of the time: the red flag, the eagle, the cockerel and the white flag bearing the Sacred Heart and the lily. Moreover, the eagle, the cockerel and the lily are the emblems used in the prophecy of Orval to designate respectively Bonaparte, Louis-Philippe and the legitimate King. In this prophecy, printed in 1829, we find, in verses 15 to 17, the lines: "Come young prince, leave the island of captivity, unite the lion with the white flower… The old blood of the centuries will yet end the long-standing divisions. Then a single Shepherd of the people will be seen in this Gaul. God will be believed to be making war through him, so careful and wise will be the offspring of the Capet. Three princes will put down the mantle of error… ".

http://rennes-le-chateau-rhedae.tripod. ... hique.html

call me suspicious, but i'm intrigued by the fact that there were no actual members of the court present at the birth of Henry Charles Ferdinand Marie Dieudonné D’Artois, Duc de Bordeaux, and later on self styled comte de Chambord.
He was born at 2.35 am on 29th Sept 1820...which is seven and a half months after his father was assassinated on 14th February, killed by a worker who wanted to wipe out the Bourbon family line by the way. So at the moment of birth the widowed Duchesse of Berry had sent everyone home for the night, "don't mind me, it's just indigestion" sort of thing, so when young Henry slithered into the world and saw the light of day they had to call some guards in to witness (after) the fact.
Guards! Guards! here's a little something towards your retirement funds, now get in there and witness...was he still actually attached to his mother by the umbilical cord i wonder ?

Anyway he really seems to have been the long hoped for miracle child...and France rejoiced.

However, on 2 August 1830, in response to the July Revolution, Henri's grandfather, Charles X, abdicated, and stranger still twenty minutes later Charles' elder son Louis Antoine, duc d'Angoulême, said "i'm outta here" and also abdicated in favor of the young duc de Bordeaux....what did they know that they weren't letting on to the 10 year old child who they had just dumped in it....most bizarre. Anyway Louis Philippe of Orléans, as Lieutenant général du royaume, was supposed to proclaim the young child Henri as Henri V, King of France and of Navarre, but deliberately did not do so.
As a consequence, after seven days, during which legitimist monarchists considered that Henri had been the rightful monarch of France, the National Assembly decreed that the throne should pass to Louis Philippe, who was proclaimed King of the French on 9 August.

With the death of old Charles X his grandfather in 1836, and of his uncle in 1844, Henri became the genealogically senior claimant to the French throne. His supporters were called Legitimists to distinguish them from the Orléanists, the supporters of the family of Louis Philippe.

Nearly 30 years later when things got ironed out a bit and our Henri was pushed forward with his C.V. in hand to apply again for the job title of "King of France", Henri the comte de Chambord blew it big style. He was by then pretender for both the legitimists and the Orléanists, and the restoration of monarchy in France seemed to be a close possibility.....the party was being prepared and expectations were high when however, Henri insisted that he would only accept the crown on condition that France abandon its tricolour flag and return to the use of the white fleur de lys flag. That was a big no-no and his job application was binned. No party.

His other big mistake was not making sure his beloved could bear them children...well you would wouldn't you...well he didn't and she couldn't...
you would think that after all this rigmarole that having a legitimate heir would be high on the list of things to get round to doing, but his chosen wife Maria Theresa the Princess of Modena had a problem with her uterus or more correctly her pelvis, which made it impossible to have sexual relations and therefore impossible to get pregnant. Oh and i mean "chosen" as in Henri's aunt chose her for him while he actually fancied the younger prettier sister more, but life's like that, he should have followed his instincts, if he had things would be a lot different now.......anyway he didn't, so when he died there was no son and heir.

I find it all highly dubious.

A nice summation of the unfounded rumors floated by the Orléaniste party before the reconciliation of their princes with Chambord.

TCP

A version of the story, "Sometime after 1899, Sauniere was visited by Jean-Stephane de Meran de Habsburg-Lorraine, whom the villagers called, Sir William". Jean-Stephane proposed to pay the priest to find hidden documents within the church. He continued to fund this research for some 6 years".

hmm...since i'm not an Orléaniste i can only speak of how i see it, which bits don't you agree with.
well, he comes across as a man of honour but in hindsight he could have accepted the crown and then ditched the tricolour....

" Français,

Je suis au milieu de vous.

Vous m’avez ouvert les portes de la France et je n’ai pas pu me refuser le bonheur de revoir ma patrie.

Mais je ne veux pas donner, par une présence prolongée, de nouveaux prétextes à l’agitation des esprits si troublés en ce moment. Je quitte donc Chambord que vous m’avez donné et dont j’ai porté le nom avec fierté depuis quarante ans, sur les chemins de l’exil. En m’en éloignant, je tiens à vous le dire, je ne me sépare pas de vous, la France sait que je lui appartiens. Je ne puis décliner que le droit monarchique est le patrimoine de la nation, ni décliner les devoirs qu’il impose envers elle. Ces devoirs, je les remplirai, croyez-en ma parole d’honnête homme et de Roi. Dieu aidant, nous fonderons ensemble et quand vous le voudrez, sur les larges assises de la décentralisation administrative et des franchises locales, un gouvernement conforme aux besoins réels du pays. Nous donnerons pour garanties à ces libertés publiques auxquelles tout peuple chrétien a droit, le suffrage universel, honnêtement pratiqué, et le contrôle des deux chambres, et nous reprendrons en lui restituant son caractère véritable, le mouvement national de la fin du dernier siècle. Une minorité révoltée contre les vœux du pays en a fait le point de départ d’une période de démoralisation par le mensonge et de désorganisation par la violence. Ses criminels attentats ont imposé la révolution à un pays qui ne demandait que des réformes et l’ont dès lors poussé vers l’abîme où hier elle eut péri, sans l’héroïque effort de notre armée. Ce sont les classes laborieuses, ces ouvriers des champs et des villes, dont le sort a fait l’objet de mes plus vives préoccupations et de mes plus chères études, qui ont le plus souffert de ce désordre social. Mais la France, cruellement désabusée par des désastres sans exemples, comprendra qu’on ne revient pas à la vérité en changeant d’erreur, qu’on n’échappe pas par des expédients à des nécessités éternelles. Elle m’appellera et je viendrai à elle tout entier, avec mon dévouement, mon principe et mon drapeau. A l’occasion de ce drapeau, on m’a imposé des conditions que je ne doit pas subir.

FRANCAIS!

Je suis prêt à tout pour aider mon pays à se relever de ses ruines et à reprendre son rang dans le monde. Le seul sacrifice que je ne puisse lui faire est celui de mon honneur. Je suis et je veux être de mon temps, je rends un sincère hommage à toutes ses grandeurs, et quelle que fut la couleur du drapeau sous lequel marchaient nos soldats, j’ai admiré leur héroïsme, et rendu grâce à Dieu de tout ce que leur bravoure ajoutait aux trésor des gloires de la France. Entre vous et moi, il ne doit subsister ni malentendu, ni arrière-pensée. Non, je ne laisserai pas, parce que l’ignorance ou la crédulité auront parlé de privilèges, d’absolutisme, ou d’intolérance, que sais-je encore? de dîme, de droits féodaux fantômes, que la plus audacieuse mauvaise foi essaie de ressusciter à vos yeux, je ne laisserai pas arracher de mes mains l’étendard d’Henri IV, de François 1er et de Jeanne d’Arc. C’est avec lui que vos pères, conduits par les miens, ont conquis cette Alsace et cette Lorraine dont la fidélité sera la consolation dans nos malheurs. Il a vaincu la barbarie sur cette terre d’Afrique, témoin des premiers faits d’armes des princes de ma famille. C’est lui qui vaincra la barbarie nouvelle dont le monde est menacé. Je le confierai sans crainte à la vigilance de notre armée : il n’a jamais suivi, elle le sait, que les chemins de l’honneur. Je l’ai reçu comme un dépôt sacré du vieux Roi mon aïeul, mourant en exil. Il a toujours été pour moi inséparable du souvenir de la patrie absente, il a flotté sur mon berceau et je veux qu’il ombrage ma tombe.


Dans les plis glorieux de cet étendard sans tache, je vous apporterai l’Ordre et la Liberté.

Henri V ne peut abandonner le drapeau blanc d’Henri IV.

Chambord, 5 Juillet 1871

Henri. "

The original story concerned Jean Orth, the former Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria-Tuscany, until facts came to light a few years ago that made the story untenable. Sometime afterward Johann Salvator was replaced in the narrative by "Jean-Stefane", or Johann Stefan, Graf von Meran when there proved to be a shortage of alternate "Johanns" in the Habsburg family tree. Any port in a storm, I guess...

TCP

Well, I'll go back up to your original post and address the points individually.

TCP

There's actually no truth to the story that the Duchesse de Berry gave birth with no witnesses, that was a story concocted by the Orléanistes to cast doubt on Chambord's legitimacy. As he grew, his resemblance to his father quelled that rumor.



Yes, because he assured the continuance of the Bourbon dynasty. His uncle the Dauphin and his wife Marie Thérèse, only surviving child of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette, were childless. Had the child been a girl the situation would have been very different.



There's a little more to the story than that, details which make it less strange. The goal of the July Revolution was to force Charles X from the throne, skip the Dauphin and Bordeaux altogether, and install the Duc d'Orléans as king in their stead. Orléans wasn't exactly torn between his duty to the King (as Lieutenant of the Kingdom) and his own ambitions; he was very much his father's son and coveted the throne for himself. But he had to play his hand close to the vest. In response, Charles X abdicated, making the Dauphin king (Louis XIX) for the next twenty minutes while his own abdication statement was prepared, passing the crown to the child Bordeaux, who at that moment became Henri V, King of France and Navarre, the Lieutenant's proclamation and the National Assembly's consent notwithstanding (which is why Orléans, once installed on the throne, became Louis-Philippe I, King of the French rather than King of France and Navarre, which was determined by primogeniture). It was basically a dare to Orléans to show his true colors - it wasn't the mean old Charles X or the uppity Dauphin he'd have to publicly betray, but an innocent child. Well, they bet and lost as Orléans had no scruples. The July Monarchy was born, and would survive eighteen years before the French tired of him as well and sent him packing to England.



Yes.



Well, yes and no. In 1867, when the Chambords were living in exile at Frohsdorf in Austria, the Orléans princes were feeling a bit unloved, having lost both their throne and their rank in the succession to the legitimate royal house. The Orléaniste Party was also at a low point, politically speaking. The Comte de Paris, head of the House of Orléans, saw an opportunity to raise the profile of his family. He approached the Comte de Chambord with an offer of reconciliation, to submit to him as the Head of the Royal House of France and to join the Orléaniste and Légitimiste parties into one political unit. By Paris' calculation, he, as the head of the only surviving "French" branch of the royal house, would one day succeed the childless Chambord. Chambord had other plans, however. According to the ancient lois fondamentales du royaume the aîné" des Capétiens was the King of France, and after himself, that person was a prince of the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon, Don Juan. While there was little love lost between Chambord and Don Juan, the latter's son and eventual heir, Don Carlos, was quite dear to him. Carlos was his wife's nephew, and he was married to Chambord's beloved niece, Marguerite of Bourbon-Parma. It was this couple for whom Chambord held parental feelings, and upon whom he wished the eventual succession to fall. So while Paris and his family were reconciled and resumed their rightful place in the Royal House of France, there was a stark difference of opinion as to where that "rightful place" was. According to the ancient lois fondamentales, that position was dead last, behind the Spanish, Sicilian, and Parmesan branches of the House of Bourbon. The Count of Paris, being no dummy, took what he could get and bided his time.

In 1873 the combined Orléaniste and Légitimiste parties gained a majority of seats in the National Assembly, and France prepared for the restoration of Henri V (the coronation carriage was being built and the Faubourg Saint-Germain was already being fitted for court dress - it was that imminent). This was make-or-break time for the Count of Paris. He wanted his succession rights added to the new constitution; if he did not get his way, the monarchist coalition would split and the hopes of the monarchists would be dashed. There were some other constitutional particulars that Chambord had problems with, but Chambord was not going to accept these terms. He said that after his death, the people of France would determine the succession (a play for populism). At that point all bets were off. Rather than take the fall for the rupture of the coalition, Chambord cited the matter of the drapeau blanc as his reason for standing aside. In fact, he had already agreed that the Tricoleur with the royal arms on the center white field would be the new national flag, while the traditional drapeau blanc would serve as the king's personal standard. It provided him with a more "tragic" yet noble cover story than his desire to thwart the ambitions of the Orléans family.



Actually they didn't have fertility tests back then. I'm sure they determined that she was a virgin, however. And actually, the paternity problem was more than likely due to an injury sustained by Chambord himself, falling off a horse at the age of ten or thereabouts. Concerns expressed at that time were that he could wind up being infertile. And yes, while his first attraction was to the younger sister Beatrice, she didn't have eyes for him (she married Don Juan instead and became the mother of Don Carlos). Being the pious sort he also found the virtues of the older sister, Marie Thérèse, to be worthy qualities for a future Queen of France. She was plainer than her sister but not ugly by any means, and she worshipped him.



Well, maybe after taking it all into consideration you won't feel that way.

TCP

Mmmm, yeah again, there's a bit more to the story than that...

The renunciations in the Treaty of Utrecht were supposed to be tripartite - Louis XIV was to renounce his rights to Spain, Phillip of Anjou was to renounce his rights to France in order to assume the Spanish throne, the Dukes of Berry and Orléans renounced their Spanish rights, and Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI was to renounce his rights to Spain. But upon being advised that the aforementioned lois fondamentales du royaume de France forbade renunciations by French princes (they could only abdicate upon actually inheriting the crown, not before), and that if Phillip's turn ever came up Charles would have to go to war with both France and Spain to enforce the terms of the treaty, he refused to sign the renunciation. The land swaps covered by the treaty went ahead, but with Charles' refusal to concede his rights to Spain, Louis XIV and Phillip V (as well as the Parlement de Paris and the Cortes de Madrid) felt no obligation to honor their renunciations so long as both crowns would never sit on a single head. And by the first time it was put to the test in 1724, many provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht had already been superseded by the Treaties of Rastatt and Baden, so its effect was in doubt.

Subsequently over the next 130 years, several Bourbon family pacts between the rulers of France, Spain, the Two Sicilies, and Parma had laid out the succession structure - Parma would succeed in the Two Sicilies if the latter became extinct, the Two Sicilies in Spain, and Spain in France. The House of Orléans was dead last. This was all in accordance with the lois fondamentales, and the Utrecht renunciations were determined to be without effect. The Orléans rulers themselves acknowledged this when they were on the French throne in 1846, during the negotiations for the marriage of the Infanta Luisa Fernanda of Spain, who was the heir-apparent of her sister Queen Isabel II, to Antoine d'Orléans, Duc de Montpensier. Per the terms of the treaty, their children would have been barred from the succession of both crowns - a dangerous predicament with the Carlists already waging war to force Isabel to abdicate. It was determined by jurists on both sides that the terms of the treaty were null and void, and would have no effect on the succession rights of Luisa's and Antoine's children in either country. So it was a bit disingenuous of the Orléans princes two decades later to assert the opposite, i.e. that the terms were still in effect and gave them precedence over the Spanish, Sicilian, and Parmesan Bourbons. They fell back on another of the lois fondamentales which stated that a foreign prince could never assume the French crown, and thus the other branches were disqualified. However, Henri III had been King of Poland when he succeeded his brother on the throne of France, and Henri IV had been King of Navarre when he succeeded. The argument centered on whether or not a French prince forfeited their succession rights by taking the crown of another country. While those same laws said that a French subject would lose their property in France if they became subjects of another ruler, they did not specify that the same applied to French dynasts. Given that the lois forbade French princes to renounce their rights, and that two French kings had previously been rulers of other states, Chambord and the Légitimistes found this excuse rather strained. Upon Chambord's death, the Spanish princes were seated in precedence at the funeral while the Orléans princes were relegated to the back of the room (they wound up leaving), and were also given the collars of the ordres du roi, worn only by the sovereign himself. But the debate rages on to this day, the current Comte de Paris and self-designated "Duc de France" uses the same arguments against the rights of Luis-Alfonso, Duke of Anjou, the aîné des Capétiens.

TCP

getting back to the original question of this thread...it seems in Saunière's time the clergy were mainly monarchist in their political sympathies...was he more vocal than others ? .... i don't think so as Msg Billard was a known anti Republican. In a nutshell here's some history.....

The Concordat of 1801 regulated relations between Church and State in France and by this agreement the state paid the salaries of priests and nominated bishops.
Historically the Catholic Church was identified with the Monarchy and conservative forces in France, especially true during the French revolution when hundreds of priests were guillotined for their opposition to the First Republic.
The Liberals, especially the Radical party, saw the Church as the main threat to individual liberty and an enemy of progress and the main area of struggle between the Church and the State was education because this is where the Church exercised a large measure of control, and we know from our research that this was the case especially in the north of France. It was felt that the Church's control of the young had prevented the development of a modern system of education like that which existed across the border in Germany.

As the clergy were in the main monarchist, the government quite rightly feared their influence on the educational system.
The dispute between Church and State grew increasingly bitter. It reflected the very deep divisions present in French society during the Third Republic, especially during the Dreyfus affaire of the 1890s.
As the clergy were in the main monarchist in their political sympathies this was a reason for fearing their influence on the educational system, with French education still following the methods and aims of the seventeenth century.

Then between 1879 and 1885 the “Ferry Laws” were passed....The Jules Ferry Laws are a set of French Laws in 1881 which established free education, then mandatory and laic education a year later. Jules Ferry, a lawyer holding the office of Minister of Public Instruction in the 1880s and one of the ablest politicians of the Third Republic, is widely credited for creating the modern Republican School (l'école républicaine). The dual system of state and church schools that were largely staffed by religious officials were replaced by state schools and lay school teachers. These educational reforms are often attributed to a broader anti-clerical campaign in France.


The main aspects of these laws were:

The granting of degrees was confined to the State.
Free education in public primary schools introduced and religious instruction was excluded from State schools the “ecole sans Dieu.”
Unauthorised congregations under the Concordat of 1801 were forbidden to teach (among these were the Marists, Jesuits who were later expelled from France and the Dominicans.
Authorised Catholic orders were denied the right to teach in State run schools.
Increased provision was given to the training of teachers by the State.

These laws were not strictly enforced especially the ban on Catholic orders teaching in state schools. However the laws created a deep division between the Church and the Republican government.

It was the beginning of a conflict which was to embitter the politics of the Third Republic almost to the end.


Then there was the Dreyfus Affaire... In the 1890’s the moderate Pope Leo XIII advised Catholics to rally to the republic and defend the interests of the church by taking a greater role in the political life of France. There was no great support for it among Catholics and it was destroyed by the divisions and bitterness that gripped France during the Dreyfus affair.

The Dreyfus affair persuaded Republican politicians that a new set of anti-clerical laws was needed. They pointed to the strongly anti-Dreyfus attitude of Catholics in France and the actions of the right wing, anti-Semitic, Assumptionist Fathers. This convinced them of the unacceptable nature of Clerical influence in France.


In 1901 each religious order had to apply for legal authorisation and no member of an unauthorised order was allowed teach. The Assumptionist Order was dissolved. The elections of 1902 saw a victory for the anti-clerical coalition.

The new administration applied the 1901 law ruthlessly and religious orders found it very difficult to gain legal authorisation. 81 congregations of women and 54 of men were dissolved. By 1903 over 14,000 schools run by unauthorised orders were closed....way to go!
In 1904 members of religious orders were forbidden to teach. Almost all religious orders were banned. Their property was sold often at well below its real value.

Between 30,000 and 60,000 priests and nuns were exiled. Some went to Ireland and mainland Britain, Italy, Spain and Canada. Catholics regarded this period as one of intense persecution. The rest of Europe was appalled at what it saw as French extremism. The same year France withdrew its ambassador to the Vatican after a papal protest against the visit of the president of France to his Italian counterpart.

The Separation of Church and State....

In 1905 the Law of separation of Church and State was passed which ended the Concordat of 1801. All ties between Church and State were cut. State salaries for priests and Bishops were ended and in theory all Church property was now controlled by the State. Catholics staged sit-ins to prevent the state from assessing Church property. In some remote regions bears were chained to church doors.
The divisions of this period died, along with so many Frenchmen, in the trenches of WWI. When the war ended most of the measures against the Church were reversed and priests and nuns returned from exile. The church emerged from the period smaller in numbers but with more committed members and an independence that it had not had in previous French history.

Saunière got suspended for being vocal, I guess that counts for something.

TCP

courtesy of Paul Smith,
http://www.rennes-le-chateau-rhedae.com ... nsion.html

Question being, how can one be accused of being "guilty of reprehensible speech and actions during the election period". if in Saunière's time the clergy were mainly monarchist in their political sympathies !

“The clergy intervened more openly in the elections than in previous ones, taking a stand against the Republicans, who had just passed the law establishing 3 years military service and obliging seminarists, like students and future members of the teaching profession, to serve for a year. The military law and the educational laws were from then on the Catholics’ great subject of protest”

not forgetting that Msg Billard was an active yet discreet anti-Republicanist.

La Semaine Religieuse de Carcassonne printed an article before the elections of 1885 that said... “The victory is not yet complete. The ballot poll, fixed at Sunday October 18, must ensure our triumph or deliver us yet to the keen enemies of the Religion and Fatherland. The moment is thus solemn and it is necessary to employ all our forces against our adversaries. That is our great concern.... Yes, let us act, pray, amend ourselves, make penitence; and perhaps we will obtain that this day of October 18, becomes for us a day of delivery”

Saunière became one of the "curés volés avec complicité par le Conseil d'Etat"..et mis en situation d'une retraite tôt, pour un "conduit indesirable".

apologies for keeping going over it...i'm just trying to get my head round it.

and apropos of my bread and Boulanger posts from earlier, i note that when Général Georges Boulanger died that Saunière noted in his journal for 30 September 1891: "Mort de Boulanger".

Maybe by delivering fiery political speeches from the pulpit? I suppose that could be seen as coercion.

TCP

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the government is wrong. Voltaire

I thnk it is important to differentiate monarchist & government & personal views.

During sauniere's time - perhaps as a priest he was 'correct' to hold anti-republican views. It would come down to why is it a priest should be so attached to a monarchy system. Is it because of the Catholic idea of a 'divine right to rule' of these kings? Is it because politically the church had much greater power and persuasion when a monarch who supported the catholic religion was in power? A double whammy as it were?

I mean, only 4 priests were suspended for anti-republican views? Was this because the rest were afraid to speak out, or did they support the Republican views - which let's face it, on human rights grounds, was the preferred way to go. The French people en masse did not want to be ruled by a monarch or the catholic church. They wanted a voted in government by the people, and less power held by the church and so called nobility or kings/queens.

We could ask - why 4 priests - of the area were so into the monarchy. What were the rest of the priests doing in the rest of France? Was the Same pattern being repeated everywhere else?

Is the reason sauniere's supported the monarchy more to do with self preservation of himself and the CHurch hierarchy etc - or some other reason?